The Secret History of MI6 - Keith Jeffery [371]
The Head Office postwar reorganisation did not, however, satisfactorily resolve the inherent conflict between the Requirements division, organised on a worldwide basis, and Production, based on specific geographical regions. The two extremes, as Sinclair observed in March 1949, were ‘control by stations’ and ‘control by targets’. If the former were strictly applied, a controller and his production staff might ‘ignore possibilities of finding agents on his door-step in England and of lines being run, or that could be run, by other Controllers into his area’. But if the latter were applied, it ‘would lead either to unco-ordinated orders to Stations or to friction in Head Office’ (or, of course, both). Examples of targets being attacked from geographically remote stations occurred during the war, when much of the small amount of intelligence SIS was able to collect about Japan came from sources in diplomatic missions across the world. The tension between ‘station’ and ‘target’ in part explained the apparently anomalous existence of the Controller Production Research section running agents from the United Kingdom, and the survival of Dunderdale’s SLC networks. In October 1948 the Controller Production Research told the VCSS’s production conference that although some of his British agents overseas, many of whom operated under business cover, were prepared to work under the local SIS representative, other firms and individuals were ‘not prepared to play except on the basis that all contact would be in the U.K.’. In these cases all he could do was to ‘keep the Controller concerned informed’. The same applied to any Controller proposing ‘a scheme for running a line into another Controller’s area’, and Sinclair laid down that in such cases Controllers (including CPR) and Dunderdale should inform each other of any projects for each other’s areas. In matters of disagreement, Sinclair himself would make the final decision.
The modernisation of SIS practices and procedures brought with it an increasing bureaucratisation of work. From the Second World War onwards the Service could no longer be run in the more informal way that Admiral Sinclair and his colleagues had been able to enjoy. Size alone - the postwar Service was ten times the size of the prewar – meant that paperwork and proper office procedure were essential for efficient operation. The formal acquisition of Foreign Office approval for operations, the drawing up of detailed station directives, regular and systematic training, close attention to and the organisation of regular feedback from customer departments all became routine in the late 1940s. Briefing the Middle East stations in May 1946, London stated that it was important for the benefit of those who came later that ‘lessons learned’ in the running of agents and operations should be reported back to Head Office from time to time. Such lessons were ‘of the greatest value’ to the training staff. Reflecting the difficult economic circumstances of the time, London additionally pointed out that ‘whereas during war funds for legitimate S.I.S. targets were not limited by financial considerations, the strictest scrutiny will, from now onwards, be required’. Future budgets, they instructed, would ‘necessitate a much more detailed